EVIDENCE. 515 



admissible, in connection with other evidence.^^^ Testimony 

 as to the market value of cattle on a certain day based on 

 newspaper reports read by a witness is admissible.'^* 

 Evidence is properly received as to the elements of value in 

 an animal used for breeding purposes, and as to its pedi- 

 gree.*^* An expert witness may testify as to whether a car 

 is reasonably safe.*^^ But cattlemen cannot testify that they 

 will not use ordinary cars if they can get the improved kind.*^^ 

 Where the plaintiff's horse was injured in the carrier's stable, 

 evidence may be given of the character of stables ordi- 

 narily used in the neighborhood.*^'' Evidence maybe received 

 of the incompetence of an employee of the carrier resulting in 

 an injury.*^* And evidence of the general course of the 

 carrier's business is admissible on the question of negli- 

 gence.*^* 



Evidence that animals of the number and weight could not 

 be shipped in one car in hot weather is admissible. It is not 

 expert evidence but proof of a fact to which anyone could 

 testify.**" The fact that a shipment of cattle bedded by the 

 shipper arrived in good condition is not admissible to prove 

 that the death of a similar shipment made at the same time 

 in cars of the same character, but sent over another route, 

 was caused by the negligence of the carrier in bedding the 



"' Hendrick v. Boston & A. R. Co., 170 Mass. 44. 



"" Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Daggett (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 

 Rep. 186, reversed on another point in 87 Tex. 322. 



And see Hudson v. North. Pac. R. Co., 92 la. 231. 



'=*Winchell v Nat. Express Co., 64 Vt. 15. And see Pacific Exp. Co. 

 V. Lothrop (Tex. Civ App.), 49 S. W. Rep. 898. 



''= Betts V. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 92 la. 343- 



'-°Mo., K. & T. R. Co. V. Darlington (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S.W. Rep. 251. 



'" Armstrong v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 45 Minn. 85. 



'"' Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Johnson (Tex.), 19 S. W. Rep. 867; 

 Martin v. Towle, 59 N. H. 31. 



'" Hendrick v. Boston & A. R. Co., 170 Mass. 44. 



'=° Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Pratt, 15 HI- App. 177- 



'" Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Wilson (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 S. W. Rep. 

 156. 



